Talking Feds is a roundtable discussion that brings together some of the most well-known former prosecutors in the country for a dynamic and entertaining analysis of the most pressing questions in today's high-profile criminal cases, including the Mueller probe and related investigations.

In the wake of unconfirmed reports that a Grand Jury in the District of Columbia refused to indict former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the feds convene in emergency TalkingFeds Now session to analyze what happened, assess how rare—and how embarrassing—a development it would have been, speculate on just what is happening now in the US Attorney’s office and Main Justice, and consider the Department’s next moves.

Following up on the last episode insiders’ account of the fabled Southern District of New Year, the Feds canvass various cases in which the SDNY is still investigating conduct by the Trump circle and Trump himself.

The Southern District of New York – the United States Attorney’s Office based in Manhattan – is the most renowned federal prosecutor’s office in the Department of Justice—and it knows it. Friends of President Trump have long identified the SDNY as a bigger threat to his presidency than Robert Mueller. What makes this office tick, and so consistently excellent?

Guest host Frank Figliuzzi leads a discussion how to fight extremist crime in the United States without compromising civil liberties. Frank is joined by Barbara McQuade, Mary McCord and Malcolm Nance, and actor Bradley Whitford explains the difference between international and domestic terrorism in this week's Sidebar Segment.
Full transcript available at talkingfeds.com

For many Republicans, the Trump Administration has posed a stark choice between values and outcomes, a choice that seems increasingly irreconcilable with the norms and practices of previous Republican administrations. Host Harry Litman talks with three Republicans who made the choice early on not to support the President's policies. William Kristol, political author and commentator, Peter Keisler, former acting Attorney General of the United States, and Carrie Cordero, former senior associate general counsel at the office of the Director of National Intelligence.

What are the values and purposes behind the pardon power? How has President Trump used this executive power in his first term and how might he use it in the future? Harry talks with an expert panel including Robert Bauer, former White House counsel and professor, Margaret Love, former pardon attorney, and Rachel Barkow, professor of Law at New York University and a former member of the United States Sentencing Commission.

They've sued domestic terrorists after Charlottesville, fought for bail reform in Oklahoma, and stood up in court for Welcoming Cities like Gary, Indiana.
The former Feds at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law left the Justice Department to take on cases that have Constitutional claims at their core. They discuss the impact of their litigation efforts in areas where the U.S. government would traditionally play a role.

Three familiar Feds are joined by director Rob Reiner to assess the testimony of special Counsel Robert Mueller and consider the prospects for continued congressional investigation. Mueller testified to Congress for seven hours about the contents of his report. Although his answers were brief, he nonetheless painted a clear picture of misconduct and potential crimes committed by the President and his associates. Harry is joined by former Feds Melinda Haag, Martha Boersch and filmmaker Rob Reiner.

Feds including some of the finest and most experienced trial lawyers in the country proffer specific, word-for-word, 5-minute lines of questioning for Special Counsel Robert Mueller. They defend their own lines of questioning and critiques others in turn. The Feds then engage in a trial lawyers’ discussion of what goals are achievable from Mueller’s testimony, which risks are worth taking and which are not, what tone to take in the questioning.

When Robert Mueller testifies on July 17th, the stakes for the House are enormous. The two committees must use the opportunity to make the American people understand the gravity of the offenses and misconduct laid out in the Report, but that is no easy task.
Harry Litman is joined by Andrew McCabe, Ron Klain, Tim Lynch, and Matt Miller for a discussion in front of a live audience. You can also watch video of the live discussion at c-span.org.

Feds Jamie Gorelick, Paul Fishman, and Amy Jeffress – a group with hugely rich experience from line Assistant U.S. Attorneys to the highest reaches of Main Justice—describe and explain the norms that should govern the interactions between political employees and career prosecutors.

Pivoting off President Abraham Lincoln’s famous maxim, the Feds consider the state of public opinion about the current President’s many serious transgressions. What explains the apparent indifference of wide swaths of the American public to the President’s assault on constitutional values and the rule of law? What are the prospects for Mueller’s upcoming testimony or other events to break through the apparent impasse?

In this special Feds Now episode, The Feds break down the myths of the Mueller Report, as first elucidated in a recent Time Magazine article. Host Harry Litman is joined by the co-authors of the article, former US Attorneys and Talking Feds charter members Barbara McQuade and Joyce White Vance. The Feds then turn to the ramifications of the 5-4 Supreme Court on political gerrymandering with Richard Cordray

The feds take up the administration’s assertion of absolute immunity for Hope Hicks, including whether absolute immunity is even a viable legal concept. They then consider a new supreme court decision that potentially points the way towards a legal breakthrough in the impasse between the White House and Congress. Finally, they consider the sobering possibility that the race is over even as Congress continues to run in place.

The Feds are honored to be joined by Rep. Ted Lieu, a forceful presence on the House Judiciary Committee. We begin with a probing look at the legal, ethical, and political implications of the President’s suggestion that it’s fine for a campaign to take negative information about an opponent from a foreign country. including the seemingly untenable position that Trump has imposed on FBI Director Christopher Wray by directly contradicting him in public.

The Feds consider the White House’s radical and unprecedented strategy to not only rebuff all investigative demands from the House, but to deny the very legitimacy of the House’s oversight. They unpack the voicemail from the President’s lawyer asking Michael Flynn’s lawyer for a “heads up”of Flynn’s communications with Mueller. They then bat around a new proposal from Prof Larry Tribe that potentially could break through the drastic logjam.

On the day when Robert Mueller broke his 2-year silence, the Feds convene in a special @talkingfeds Now! Episode to tell you what wasn’t said in the wall-to-wall coverage. Each Fed offers up in roundtable order a detail or nuance that the coverage overlooked or underreported, filling in some critical blanks and implications in the first and perhaps only statement that Mueller will make.

The Feds analyze the current apparent impasse between the Administration and the House of Representatives and discuss possible inroads that the House Democrats could nevertheless execute. They detail possible witnesses that the House still can call. They conclude by considering the legal and political implications of the two district court victories upholding subpoenas for financial records of the President, including before 2016.

The Feds discuss the implications of the revelation that some member(s) of Congress helped dangle a pardon to Michael Flynn, and the importance of the district court’s muscular intervention in ordering that the information be made public. They then consider Trump's deranged tweet about treason and the overall impact of Trump's threats now that he has an apparent ally and loyal servant in the Attorney General of the United States.

Of all the many aspects of the various Trump dramas, the counter-intelligence investigation of the President and his campaign can be the hardest to understand and follow, not least because it remains highly classified and we have no way to chart its progress with certainty. But we can bring a depth of knowledge and experience to the topic, and that is what Feds Frank Figliuzzi and Josh Campbell, who both have extensive FBI experience, do in this episode.

A Talking Feds NOW special episode. The Feds convene in emergency session to dissect the Attorney General’s remarkable testimony today before the Senate Judiciary Committee and to analyze the import of Barr’s apparent decision to act as an advocate for the President’s personal interests.

As the center of investigation of Trump’s misconduct moves to the House, a group of Feds who have special in-depth knowledge of Congressional investigations predict what lies ahead. The Feds discuss the likely maneuvers of three House Committees and the likely counter maneuvers of the Department of Justice. They consider the prospects for the House to get the Mueller Report without redactions, and the possible critical roles for public opinion and the handful of moderate Republican Senators. Harry is in Washington, D.C. with Robert Raben, Elliot Williams and Matt Miller.

The Feds probe deeply into the 438-page redacted Mueller report, training their focus in in particular on the respective roles of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Attorney General William Barr. Was Mueller’s decision to shy away from a bottom line judgment on obstruction of justice appropriate? Is Barr not an honest broker, and if not, why not? The Feds tell us the one thing that surprised them the most in the Mueller report. Host Harry Litman is in La Jolla, CA by Carol Lam, Jennifer Rodgers a

The Feds convene in emergency session to discuss the Mueller report and the Barr press conference. They analyze whether Barr was a faithful expositor or an advocate for Trump, and whether Mueller’s intent was to leave the judgment on obstruction to Congress. Host Harry Litman is joined remotely by Amy Jeffress, Jennifer Rodgers and Paul Fishman.

The Feds analyze what to expect from the soon-to-issue Mueller report and offer educated surmises on the internal dynamics within DOJ, including the relationship between the Special counsel’s office and the Attorney General. They then take up the Assange case, again explaining the dynamics within government and evaluating whether it was a case that should have been brought.
Host Harry Litman is joined in the Washington D.C. studio by Amy Jeffress, Julie O'Sullivan, and Matthew Miller.

The Feds analyze the outbreak of the war of press leaks between the Mueller camp and the Barr camp and the emerging dueling versions of Barr’s decision to give the President a pass on obstruction. They then consider the prospects that the House will be able to secure the unredacted Mueller Report and the President’s tax returns.
Host, Harry Litman, is joined remotely by Joyce Vance, Paul Fishman, and Matthew Miller.

At a time of intense curiosity about the contents of the Mueller Report, and assessment of Mueller’s key decisions over the course of the probe, this episode brings together prominent former federal officials who each worked closely and at length under Mueller when he was United States Attorney and Federal Bureau of Investigation Director. Their vantage points, generally absent from the public discussion to date, give rise to educated surmises about Mueller’s calculations over the life of the probe to

The feds debate Special counsel Robert Mueller’s baffling decision not to reach a judgment as to the President guilt of obstruction and the Attorney General’s decision to step into the breach and clear Trump. They then discuss the many perils that remain for Trump and his circle from investigations in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere.
Host, Harry Litman, is joined remotely by Barbara McQuade and Mimi Rocah.

The Feds convene an emergency session to discuss Bob Mueller’s long-awaited submission of his report to the Attorney General.
Host, Harry Litman, is joined remotely by Paul Fishman, Julie Zebrak, and Matthew Miller.

The Feds consider whether it was appropriate for the Manhattan DA to file pardon-proof charges against Paul Manafort, then describe the specific steps Congress and the DOJ would take to investigate the emails to Michael Cohen suggesting Trump and Giuliani may have dangled a pardon to keep him silent.
Host, Harry Litman, is joined in the Washington D.C. studio by Elliot Williams, Julie Zebrak, and Elie Honig.

The Feds discuss what the Mueller Report might look like and what happens after it drops, then turn to consideration of Paul Manafort's prospects for ever getting out of prison.
Host, Harry Litman, is joined in the Washington D.C. studio by Joyce Vance, Paul Fishman, and Matthew Miller.

Talking Feds is a prosecutors’ roundtable that brings together some of the most well-known former prosecutors in the country for a detailed, dynamic, and entertaining analysis of the most pressing questions in high-profile criminal cases, including the Mueller probe and related investigations.